U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,192,455 times
Reputation: 3949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What an odd statement.
You only think so because you do not know what the word "contradiction" means."

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not everyone has 'the right' to natural born citizen status, hence the separate distinctions of 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen.'
Platypusses, IC. Platypusses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:14 PM
 
62,769 posts, read 28,074,695 times
Reputation: 7952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
An order to deploy to the Pentagon is perfectly legal, and order to deploy to Afghanistan is illegal? There's a specific "foreign country" exception in the UCMJ? I am agog, do tell.
U.S. citizens are legally present in the U.S. They are not necessarily legally present in other countries. What does the UCMJ say about illegally authorized U.S. troops occupying other countries?

Quote:
Oh. That's interesting, I thought Lakin was troubled by his oath. Somebody posted upthread that Oh, wait - that was you! And so now it's a matter of legal repercussions in Afghanistan. I see.
You really can't make the connection between the Constitution, who is Constituionally eligible to serve as CIC, and therefore who is legitimately able to authorize military deployment to foreign countries? Really???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:16 PM
 
62,769 posts, read 28,074,695 times
Reputation: 7952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You only think so because you do not know what the word "contradiction" means."


Platypusses, IC. Platypusses.
In your own little world, again?

Read the concluding statement of U.S. v. Ark, without imagining things this time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:19 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,531,778 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You only think so because you do not know what the word "contradiction" means."

Platypusses, IC. Platypusses.
I can't save you now, Dude.

You're on your own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:21 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,531,778 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
In your own little world, again?

Read the concluding statement of U.S. v. Ark, without imagining things this time.
He's going to call out his viscous aardvark.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:22 PM
 
39,098 posts, read 23,285,932 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes he does. U.S. law does not negate the biological father's rights. That's why Obama, et al, admit Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
No, he doesn't. US law with regards to citizenship observes US law ONLY. We don't care what other nations do, or how they assign citizenship. We only care about US laws. So, no, US law does not negate Obama, Sr's rights. US law just doesn't give a rat's tail what British law has to say about the citizenship of Obama, Sr's children, including Obama Jr.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:28 PM
 
39,098 posts, read 23,285,932 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What an odd statement. Not everyone has 'the right' to natural born citizen status, hence the separate distinctions of 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen.'
What separate distinctions are you talking about? The ones defined in US Legal Code? Not there. The ones defined by US Federal Court decisions. Don't exist. You may want the law to make distinctions, but unfortunately for you it doesn't. Vattel may make distinctions. But that's not US law. No laws in the United States make such a distinction. The only distinction is between citizens and naturalized citizens. Which would make the case legally that precedence in American jurisprudence would indicate that all citizens who did not have to go through a naturalization process would be considered natural-born citizens. Especially those born on American soil. Because when citizenship has come into question, the jus soli arguments have prevailed over and over again in American federal courts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:29 PM
 
30,013 posts, read 15,364,572 times
Reputation: 15725
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
U.S. citizens are legally present in the U.S.
Deep. Now try answering the question. Was the order to deploy to the Pentagon legal?

Quote:
What does the UCMJ say about illegally authorized U.S. troops occupying other countries?
You tell me - as I said, I'm excited ti hear about this specific overseas rule in the UCMJ. Fascinated, you might say. I was so hoping you'd be able to cite it.

Quote:
You really can't make the connection between the Constitution, who is Constituionally eligible to serve as CIC, and therefore who is legitimately able to authorize military deployment to foreign countries? Really???
As I said, pick a narrative. Was Lakin's refusal to deploy based on his oath of service or of fear of Afghan legal consequences? You've stated both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:32 PM
 
62,769 posts, read 28,074,695 times
Reputation: 7952
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
No, he doesn't. US law with regards to citizenship observes US law ONLY. We don't care what other nations do, or how they assign citizenship.
Incorrect. There is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to serve as POTUS and CIC. The Constitutional eligibility clause's meaning and intent is defined in Jay's letter. Obama, et al, admit Obama was born a Brit, as they admit he was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:33 PM
 
62,769 posts, read 28,074,695 times
Reputation: 7952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Was the order to deploy to the Pentagon legal?
Is it legal for Lakin to be present on U.S. soil?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top